Don.
A couple of points.
The AAPMBF, (then) Trustrees were aware, in 2007, of the points that you mention. That AFAP had no specific structure in this regard, and that they had several members who were not AAPMBF members. Yet they (AAPMBF Trustees) strongly recommended that we adopt the AFAP as Trustee.
The structure is not an issue, as the AAPMBF Trustees must have realised. Trusteeship is governed by the Trustee Laws of the state of Victoria. Those laws dictate the way funds held in trust may be dealt with.
In practice and in accordance with the rules that we voted for (at the behest of the then Trustees), until the dismissal, the AFAP was to have title, as Trustee, and the AAPMBF Board was to administer the fund and monies. THE TRUSTEE LAWS REQUIRE THAT THE TRUSTEE HOLDS TITLE TO THE ASSETS OF THE FUND. The AAPMBF have legal advice which confirms that fact.
This has all occurred because of a perception that the AFAP, by insisting that the LAW be abided by, has sought to grasp the funds. It hasn't. It has merely sought to run the 2007 proposals to their logical and legal conclusion.
If the AAPMBF Board claim that they were unaware of the consequences of the rule change that they promoted, they are either lying, or are totally inept. Any clown knows that you cannot transfer reponsibility but not transfer access/control to the things for which you are shedding responsibility.
Maui